On 06/15/2016 10:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev > <[email protected]> wrote: >> This same value for EM_BPF is being propagated to glibc, >> elfutils, and binutils. > > great! > Can you share the link to glibc and the other patches?
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-06/msg00212.html https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/OEOF26ZHEJLHPOMRMOGDXTMYXUHPWVGA/ I haven't sent one yet for binutils. >> + EM_BPF = 0xeb9f, // Linux kernel bpf virtual machine > > was this id reserved this with whoever managing the numbers ? > The only reason bpf backend used em_none is that we were couldn't > figure out who's responsible for keeping these records. No, it's an unofficial number. But there's history for this. In binutils there's a comment /* If it is necessary to assign new unofficial EM_* values, please pick large random numbers (0x8523, 0xa7f2, etc.) to minimize the chances of collision with official or non-GNU unofficial values. NOTE: Do not just increment the most recent number by one. Somebody else somewhere will do exactly the same thing, and you will have a collision. Instead, pick a random number. Normally, each entity or maintainer responsible for a machine with an unofficial e_machine number should eventually ask [email protected] for an officially blessed number to be added to the list above. */ It used to take years to get sco to answer such emails. r~ _______________________________________________ iovisor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.iovisor.org/mailman/listinfo/iovisor-dev
